It has been a decade since the beginning of the second most significant attempt to resolve the Cyprus issue, following the rejection of the Annan Plan by the Greek Cypriot community in 2004.
The 2015 negotiations began under the most promising conditions. On one hand, Nikos Anastasiades was at the helm of the Republic, the only political leader who had wholeheartedly supported a solution back in 2004. On the other, Mustafa Akıncı’s election as the Turkish Cypriot leader sent encouraging signals that he was genuinely ready for a settlement. Together, their presence raised hopes for a breakthrough.
By the summer of 2017, the peace process had reached its peak. The UN Secretary-General’s representative repeatedly stated that both sides were “in the final stretch” before a possible agreement.
What exactly happened at the Crans-Montana dinner has since been the subject of endless analysis and debate. The reasons behind the failure -and who should bear responsibility- continue to divide the Greek Cypriot community to this day.
A new wave of controversy has recently erupted, sparked by an interview with former President Anastasiades, who launched a harsh attack against his former close associate and ex-EU Commissioner Christos Stylianides. Stylianides, in turn, accused him of attempting his political destruction.
The dispute has since spread, drawing in political figures such as Andreas Mavroyiannis and Andros Kyprianou, further fueling tensions on the political stage.
It is puzzling why the debate over the Crans-Montana failure is resurfacing eight years later, especially now, when the recent election of the new Turkish Cypriot leader, Tufan Erhürman, has rekindled a faint but real spark of hope for the resumption of talks toward a viable solution for all Cypriots.
Common sense dictates that focusing on the blame for a “lost opportunity” only distracts from the real issue, the potential for renewed momentum and progress on the Cyprus question.